+1
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
This probably marks me as a huge dork, but I give zero fucks about that. I like those. I’d wear those! 
Well, okay, maybe I’d like them a little less wrinkly, but I do like the pocketage.
(I keep my phone in my front pocket, and only buy pants that have adequate front pockets. Though I did discover last time I went to a convention that a back pocket is a great place to keep an extra phone battery. I made friends when other iPhone owners wanted to plug into my power source. :D)
me too!
I’m actually wearing cargo pants right now. 
They aren’t quite THAT cargo-y, nor that baggy, nor that wrinkled. But they have adequate front pockets, and nice spacious pockets over the thighs, and a little interior pocket where I put my wedding right if I’m doing dishes or something so it doesn’t get lost in the big pockets. And while they aren’t quite as aggressively ugly as the ones at your link, I don’t usually wear them if I’m going to work, or to anyplace social. I mostly wear them around the house, and maybe for running errands.
Pretty sure I owned those exact pants in the 1990s.
What does this even mean? So in your mind, it’s no longer okay for a man to express his feelings about how a woman looks? What kind of insanity is this? And to clarify as I have done over and over, I am decidedly NOT talking about catcalls, untoward comments, groping, pinching, etc. I am talking about on HERE…a messageboard.
I have already stated that I can see why my OP was offensive to some. I also readily admitted to not knowing the supposedly dire situation regarding the current state of women’s pants choices and their lack of storage up front. What kind of “faux bewilderment” are you referring to? I’m not bewildered. I simply fail to understand why it’s suddenly not okay to say out loud, on an anonymous messageboard, that yes, I, as a straight male, happen to find attractive women…attractive?
Jesus.
Somehow I get the impression that everyone wants me to just let this go, but it’s so inanely ludicrous that I just can’t. I won’t. This is so fucking bizarre.
As did I. But I’ll admit it only under the threat of torture.
I’ve recently discovered that Colombian jeans actually come in my shape: I don’t need to spend as much money or more on having them fitted to my shape as I paid in the first place.
But it means that any kind of front pockets are a vague memory. Some don’t even have back pockets. When possible, I stick my phone in a handbag / lunch box / coat pocket, but when none of those are available the phone may end up in a back pocket or my waistband. There’s simply no other place.
Men and women theoretically live in the same universe, but we experience very different worlds. You live with a woman for long enough, and listen to her and take her seriously, and after awhile you start to get a picture of what the world looks through her eyes. And it’s just a very different place.
What’s going on here is that women are constantly judged on their looks in situations where their looks should not be an issue. There’s nothing wrong with us guys appreciating a woman’s looks, but here you’re criticizing for no good reason the way women who are total strangers to you are displaying their bodies - in a situation where they’re not going about intentionally making a display of their bodies, but just going about their business that has nothing to do with you.
Women shouldn’t have to feel like they’re constantly on display, that their looks might be found wanting in some way by random passersby just because they’re walking down the street.
Current? Current?!
In 26 years of marriage, I can’t remember a time when pockets *haven’t *been an issue for my wife when she’s been buying clothes.
Us guys take pockets for granted - our jeans and slacks have good front and back pockets, our shirts usually have a front pocket, our suit jackets have pockets inside and out. If a woman is shopping for clothes, just wanting any sort of pockets at all cuts her options way down, and wanting useful pockets of any sort cuts her options down even further. She’s got to take them where she can get them; she doesn’t have a world of choices.
That certainly wasn’t the message any rational person would have gotten from “I cannot help but think this is a way for women to draw attention to their ass in some weird way.” Quite the opposite, really. This is “random women walking down the street have displeased me with their looks.” (The nerve of them! What business do they have, doing that? Don’t they know that they exist to please my eyeballs?)
a very good post RT - and you’ve really hit on something: you have to listen and take her seriously.
and yet it seems to be rocket science for some. :rolleyes:
I believe that women’s clothing came with useful storage until after World War I, when Art Nouveau popularized an ideal of feminine beauty that didn’t leave room for bulky pockets. We haven’t had useful pockets (without a lot of extra effort) ever since, although the ladies’s purse did become popular.
Let me see if I can explain this in a slightly different way.
You observed a phenomena and your response was “are women trying to drawn attention to their ass?”
An alternate, more sexually neutral response might have been “why don’t they put these in their front pocket?” or “don’t women have some other place to put them?”
The latter responses are about choice of storage area. Your response dragged sex into the matter, with some variety of assumption that because a woman was involved somehow sex was involved, too.
If you saw men carrying some object in their back pockets would your first assumption have been they were trying to draw attention to their asses, or there was some storage issue that had nothing to do with sex?
If the answer isn’t the same for the men or women then you have a bias, even if you’re not aware of it.
There is a serious, serious problem in our society with men being clueless how their viewpoint and actions impinge on women. A lone woman can NOT go anywhere or do anything without serious odds of having random men, complete strangers, come up, bother her, interrupt what she’s doing, making random come-on lines. There is a problem with a segment of men who really do seem to think that everything a woman does it intended to affect them personally, who get offended if a woman they see isn’t up to their standards of pretty, who seem to think a woman is somehow honored (rather than bothered or pissed off) by the least attention he gives her, and gets angry if she doesn’t return his attention.
This is NOT to say you are such a person, but your comment in the OP certainly sounded characteristic of such a person - oh, women are doing this thing, it must be to attract attention to their ass because it’s all about what men see.
The fact you continue to appear clueless about all this is why people are reacting the way they are.
Thanks!
Yeah, I’d think this would be pretty much basic stuff - not just in a marriage, but also with, you know, friends. Of either sex.
I’ll take your word for it, since the history of clothing is one of my areas of extreme ignorance. But once women outside the upper classes were expected to pay attention to their looks on more than an occasional basis, it’s not surprising that pockets in women’s clothes were a casualty.
Thanks for a really good explanation.
I feel like people have been a little harsh on the OP. He hasn’t implied women are wearing stuff because they want sex with him, for instance. But yes, he’s definitely perpetuating “what matters about women is what they look like to men”, and seems a little clueless about why that’s harmful to women.
+1
Then, when women tell him that no, they really aren’t trying to get him or guys like him to look at their ass by trying to find a practical place to put a phone, he tries to change the subject onto yoga pants, and how women are wearing them to try and get him to look at their ass.
C’mon.
Speaking of yoga pants… I just went to my gym, which is an all-female gym, mostly so women can exercise without worrying about men watching/judging them. As I left, I watched a few minutes of an aerobics class. At least half the women in it were wearing yoga pants. Pretty sure that wasn’t to show off their asses.
Threads like this one are exactly why I take frequent breaks from the Dope and avoid posting much at all. Sexism is, alas, alive and well right here on this board (not a huge surprise, given its prevalence in the culture at large, though I try to hold the board to a higher standard than the dumbed-down, lowest common denominator world we live in).
However, I am very happy to see so many people challenging the OP’s assumptions/assertions. It’s encouraging to see people challenging this kind of thing.
And FTR, I carry my phone in my purse or backpack.
I’m a dude. Carry my phone in my back pocket all the time.
I guess I am going to just apologize to everyone that’s read this. I in no way consider myself to be sexist nor do I objectify women. I have re-read my OP and this thread and it’s painfully obvious that I was offensive without intending to be, and for that I apologize.
A couple posters upthread had some great responses that made me think some on just how my OP offended some women on here.
Other than this ill-fated and poorly worded OP, I treat others, men and women, with respect and am more into an intellectual conversation with people than anything else. So again, I apologize for coming off that way. I’ve been around here for almost ten years now and I have never, ever gotten a reaction like this.
By the way, some clothing manufacturer somewhere is missing out on an opportunity to design and make women’s pants with adequate front pocketry.
Okay, well I was not so much offended as just kind of resigned and disappointed.
Now about those pockets. I, along with every woman I play tennis with (and they are not all old geezers like me but some of them are) have a big problem. For a brief period following the currently much touted Billie Jean King/Bobby Riggs match, tennis skirts with ample pockets were widely available. It was hard to find good tennis skirts or dresses with pockets before that, say when I was in high school, and it was a hassle. If your first serve went in you could throw the extra ball behind you or hold it in your left hand for the duration of the point. Annoying either way. Men’s tennis clothes always had pockets.
But then it was like a light went on, and manufacturers started making skirts and dresses with pockets. And not only that, when you had balls in your pockets it did not look like you had balls in your pockets.
And then the light went out, and they started putting the pockets in the undershorts, upside down. So now you have to hike up your skirt and get the ball out, or hike it up to put the extra ball in, instead of just reaching into your pocket and grabbing. And apparently this is okay with enough of the buying public, so now, no more pockets in the skirts.
Gahhh! I have ranted about this before. For one thing, I occasionally put things other than the balls in my pockets. Like a Kleenex, a bandanna, lip balm, maybe my sunglasses if it got cloudy. These things fall out of an upside down pocket (yes. Even the balls do on occasion, and they go right under your feet).*
So every woman I play with bitches about this, and some people take their brand new $70 tennis skirts to a tailor and have pockets put in, and some people put on patch pockets, and some people, like me, just wear very, very old tennis skirts.
I say there’s a market here. I’m not the only one who wants this. But just try to find a skirt with a pocket on the outside. I did find one. The pocket is IN THE BACK and it’s only big enough for one ball. It’s awkward.
Or you can get a little thing to hang on your belt. Awkward. I mean, okay, I’ve seen them, I haven’t tried one, but they LOOK awkward.
Tuck the ball in your waistband. Ugh. Tuck the ball into your compression shorts you’re wearing under the skirt. Just as bad as the ball pocket really.
And this is for activewear. What d o you think manufacturers do for business clothes? Do I have an inside breast pocket? No; I am lucky if I have an outside pocket.
Yet occasionally I have found clothes that had adequate pockets. One of my favorites had deep pockets in the blazer, deep pockets in the skirt, and an inside blazer pocket big enough to put a reporter’s notebook, but it was tres expensive. And finding things like that is just luck. Really good luck, not the norm.
Ah well, I have ranted about this before, and has it fixed things? Nope.
ETA: *Oh, and if it should be coolish, and you should be wearing some kind of full length warmup garment under your skirt, where are your pockets now? They are underneath your warmup garment and inaccessible.